Letters

Plaudits to Robert Fried for getting to "the heart of the matter''
in his essay concerning the lack of passion in the classroom
["Viewpoint,'' October]. After teaching high school English for more
than 30 years, I felt that early retirement was essential for the
maintenance of my sanity because the spark was gone--not from me but
from our educational institutions, which, over the years, have evolved
from schools to management-driven clones of big business.

To those of us who entered teaching in the idealistic 1960s, the joy
of the classroom resulted from the passion many of us had for ideas and
the satisfaction we derived from igniting the fertile minds that sat in
front of us. As Fried correctly describes it, teaching was an "art''
whereby the teacher infused his or her personality, as well as an
innate love and enthusiasm for the subject, into the lesson.

What has killed this productive atmosphere? Fried briefly touches
upon the culprit. Too many teachers approach each day in "a fog of
fatigue'' or come to work "wrapped in a self-protective cocoon.'' What
Fried does not explain is why this happens.

Ever since A Nation at Risk appeared in the early 1980s, schools
have responded by evolving from centers that inspired creativity and
individuality to institutions that prescribe "top down'' management
control of every aspect of the teaching process. With the mandated
constraints of outcome-based education, multicultural education,
eight-step lesson plans, goal assessment programs, cooperative
learning, and more, teachers have been discouraged from infusing their
lessons with creativity, individuality, and "passion.'' They are now
seen as components--factory-ready interchangeable parts--that can be
handed an overly elaborate curriculum outline and plugged into any
available compartment.

How could anyone orchestrate a dynamic class with an administrator
sitting in the back of the room criticizing the lesson because it
lacked formal closure or did not begin with a review of the previous
day's material? What schools need more than ever today are educators,
not managers. But unfortunately, over the past decade, the managerial
mentality has proliferated while passionate educators quietly fade
away.

Julian Freund
Park Forest, Ill.

More On Cissy Lacks

As a concerned English teacher and published writer, I reacted very
strongly to the cover article on teacher Cissy Lacks in your September
issue ["Expletives Deleted'']. I do not agree either with Lacks or with
your magazine's stance on the issue.

First, schools must maintain standards. Obscenity, not only in
action but also in language, may be acceptable on the streets, in far
too many homes, on TV, and in the movies, but it should not be
acceptable in school or in school-related work. If we teachers and
writers are, as William Faulkner put it so succinctly in his Nobel
acceptance speech, in a position to lift up others and to help them
"endure and prevail,'' then we need to counter the reality of violence,
poverty, drugs, and obscenity with the reality of decency,
perseverance, and integrity by promoting the latter in school.

Second, good English teachers know that profanity is
counterproductive in the development of vocabulary. If everything is
"f---ing,'' students do not have to master meaningful adjectives and
adverbs. Students can learn to express themselves well without the
shock value of mind-degrading obscene language.

Perhaps Lacks is a good teacher in other ways, and perhaps her
administration should have handled this situation in a better way, but
to imply that expecting clean language as part of our high expectations
of students is not an appropriate request of school administration is
wrong.

Cheryl Heser
Rosebud, Mont.

I was deeply disappointed by Karen Diegmueller's article "Expletives
Deleted.'' I had viewed your magazine as a voice for objective
reporting. To portray a dismissed teacher who had given tacit approval
to her students' use of obscene and abusive language as a victim of
overzealous censorship is ludicrous. This would never be tolerated in a
well-to-do suburban public school. To assume it is acceptable in a
lower-income urban public school, where minorities predominate, smacks
of a paternalistic condescension and perhaps reverse
discrimination.

If this is what must be tolerated in the public system, it is a
powerful plug for the Milwaukee school choice option highlighted in the
article that followed Diegmueller's ["What's Brewing in Milwaukee?''].
In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, "To educate a person in mind and not
in morals is to educate a menace to society.''

Lowell Smith
Salem, Ore.

Good teachers allow flexibility and freedom to provide for diverse
student interests and learning styles. However, assignments still need
to be clear and include parameters for student focus. This is no
contradiction. An amount of thematic direction helps guide students
without being restrictive and sets sensible boundaries that usually
preclude awkward censorship problems later.

After reading "Expletives Deleted,'' I had problems shaping any
focus from Cissy Lacks' assignment directions. What did the intended
script on "something important to you'' have to do with the drama of
the three novels they read? The use of student profanity is secondary
to the apparent vagueness of the directions as reported in the
article.

If the years at Berkeley have been her toughest, perhaps the
students there have a more concrete sequential learning style than the
abstract random one she seems to accommodate. More specificity in
direction may have been required here. Many students have difficulty
with free-floating latitudes to directions for creative language
projects. Any teacher is asking for trouble if the students who need
the borders and margins aren't given them.

Peter Hildebrand
Paul Gates School
Acton, Mass.

Why would teachers who find themselves in an inner-city school where
life is "hell'' want to have students produce a play that does nothing
more than reproduce that "hell''? These children are not expressing
themselves, they are simply "copycatting'' their lives. It does not
take much thought or imagination to act out what you do every day.

Look at the movies that came out of Hollywood during the Great
Depression (I'm 62, so I know what I'm talking about). These were not
movies of despair and hopelessness; they were upbeat. This lifted
spirits and gave people hope that things would not always be like they
were. In The Grapes of Wrath, did people sit around crying, "Oh me, oh
my''? No! They gathered their things and moved West.

If you really want to teach students, teach them how to dream. Have
them read Ivanhoe, La Morte d'Arthure, Captains Courageous. Teach them
to think beyond where they are. Get them to produce a play about where
they would like to be and then convince them that it is possible. If
their dream is to become a doctor, a scientist, a banker, a store
owner, then students must learn that "street language'' is not part of
those professions. A student who dreams of becoming an engineer has to
be made to realize that approaching Westinghouse for employment with
street language will get the door slammed in his or her face. By
teaching students to communicate at a higher level, you can show them
that they have already built the first rung of their ladder to
success.

Charles Longwell
Bertram, Texas

Lessons From Japan

I worry that your review of my book Educating Hearts and Minds:
Reflections on Japanese Preschool and Elementary Education ["Books,''
September] might create misunderstanding. The reviewer writes: "Lewis
shows the much-lauded small groups . . . in one case pummeling a
classmate who has not met certain 'norms.' '' I imagine he refers to
one of two incidents I describe, one in which a lunch monitor fails to
notice it's time to fetch lunch, and his hungry preschool groupmates
hit him on the back to remind him, and another in which a 1st grader
hits a classmate who is forgetting to turn on the television for a show
the class is waiting to watch. I wouldn't describe either of these as
"pummeling.'' Such momentary slaps, pushes, and punches are a frequent
part of daily life in both American and Japanese schools, as young
children gradually learn to use words instead of physical force.

Japanese teachers' reluctance to intervene and punish the
"offender'' and their emphasis on children's own problem
solving--whether we agree with these strategies or not--provide a
vantage point for thinking about our own methods of conflict
resolution. By getting children to intervene when they see others
fighting, Japanese teachers hope to reduce fighting in the streets and
neighborhoods--not just on school grounds.

I found myself offended by the reviewer's comment that John Dewey
"must be doing somersaults in his grave'' as Japanese teachers
acknowledge their debt to him. Is the underlying message that Japanese
teachers' decades-old struggle to build friendship and collaboration in
classrooms can teach us nothing--unless it duplicates exactly what we
would do? We can best honor Dewey's legacy by showing an openness to
learn from other cultures and to use thoughtfully the mirror they
provide for reflecting on our own education goals.

I just finished the article "Is Nothing Sacred?,'' by Warren Nord
["Comment,'' August]. Ultimately, Nord's commentary raises more
questions than it answers. First is the implied definition of
"religion.'' It would seem that the author is a proponent of religion
being included in American schools. I don't have a problem with that; I
will be teaching a comparative religion course in the spring at my
public high school. The problem I see is with the implication that
religion means Christianity. How would the author feel about his
article if religion were to mean Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism?
I believe that one issue that must be dealt with when placing religion
into the educational curriculum is whose religion and how will that
religion be taught?

If and when religion is placed in the curriculum, will it be
theology or comparative religions or religion in the social life or how
to pick a religion? Will it be matters of faith or religious social
structure or ritual or religious history? Which version or
interpretation shall we use when discussing the creation stories,
whether it be Yahweh or Allah or Aristotle's unmoved mover? Shall we
accept the contents of religious texts as facts that have occurred in
history or as wonderful metaphors for how (and how not) to live life or
some mixture of both?

I agree with the author that there needs to be greater religious
literacy that the public schools can provide, but I also believe that
it should not be so narrow as to exclude anything that does not fit
into the Judeo-Christian concept of faith or religion.

Chuck Schallhorn
Munster (Ind.) High School

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.